This website uses cookies to help us give you the best experience when you visit our website. By continuing to use this website, you consent to our use of these cookies. For full details visit https://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/legal-information

This website uses cookies to help us give you the best experience when you visit our website. By continuing to use this website, you consent to our use of these cookies. For full details visit https://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/legal-information

You are here

Bobbing and Weaving in self defense

Seems mostly irrelevant to me outside of sport, ut I thought i'd post this video and we could discuss it:

Anyway, i do see many places where evasion can come into play in self defense, especially in terms of overall body movement and angling obviously, but for the most part, boxing style bobbing and weaving seems so based on dueling behavior, and seems to be risky behavior in this enviromnent. what do you think?

for the most part, boxing style bobbing and weaving seems so based on dueling behavior

Exactly. The only thing that video is showing me is that how hard it can be to hit a moving target, especially a rather small target like the head and thus how important the use of the non striking hand is in terms of setting a reference point in order to increase the accuracy when hitting.

Regards Holger

P.S. I have a kind of a deja vu. Didn't we discuss the very same video early in the last year?

In terms of content, there is definitely a strong element of “self-protection = street fighting = a fight in the street”.

Martial artists generally prefer to reinvent violence to fit their own existing skills, as opposed to effectively studying criminal behaviour and the nature of civilian violence. They pick the type of fighting they are most familiar with, step out into the street and do exactly what they would do in the ring, dojo, or on the mat, and then present their “fight in the street” as being a “street fight” which is synonymous with “self-protection”. Not so in my view.

“Fight in the Street”: All that has been changed is the physical location, and sometimes the clothing. There has been no change in methodology and no consideration of the huge impact that the differing objective will now have.

“Self-Protection”: The skills and behaviour requited to keep yourself, your loved ones and your property safe from criminal activity. The physical component is a last resort and a relatively small part of the overall skill set. The physical component should focus on the goal of keeping yourself safe from harm, as opposed to using fighting skills to “win the fight”. It also need remembered that the criminal element is likely to be smart enough to know that numbers, weapons, ambush, etc are far more effective than standing “toe to toe”, raising their hands and engaging in a square go (as we see here).

As I say, martial artists of all types have a band habit of “self-protection = street fighting = a fight in the street”. As examples, some “traditional” karateka have the “bad guys” attack with lunching punches; some BJJ guys have everything go to the ground; and here we see boxing skills and distances imposed on a context where they are not really relevant.

Head movement is a key fighting skill and it’s certainly something we work on in my dojo, but we are clear it is a fighting skill; not a self-protection skill. Sure, if a punch was coming in, and you had the time and distance, you could move your head and make it harder for the attacker to hit you … but that’s not the best tactic by a long way. To be in that situation, lots and lots of other more effective options have been ignored.

ky0han wrote:

P.S. I have a kind of a deja vu. Didn't we discuss the very same video early in the last year?

If you were to look how the footwork employed by karateka has evolved over the last forty years or so, we can see a marked shift from the “flat footed shuffling back and forth” of the 60s and 70s, to “on the balls of the feet, light and lively” footwork of today. This shift is because of the influence and effectiveness of the footwork in western boxing (for fighting).

I never thought keeping the heels on the ground was something specific to physical self protection. To me "heel on the ground vs ball of the foot" was 2 sides of the same coin, not different skills for different contexts. I have to rethink a lot of things now.

I never thought keeping the heels on the ground was something specific to physical self protection. To me "heel on the ground vs ball of the foot" was 2 sides of the same coin, not different skills for different contexts. I have to rethink a lot of things now.

Hi John,

I think you may have misunderstood me. There are times to move on the heel and there are times to move on the ball of the foot in a self-protection context. What I’m talking about is the following evolution in the fighting side of things:

In this footage of Enoeda v Kanazawa we can see the “flat footed shuffling back and forth” I was referring to.

In this more recent footage we can see “on the balls of the feet, light and lively” footwork of today:

Notice how in the first piece of footage the movement is primarily done by shuffling with flat feet. In the second piece of footage the movement is done from the balls of the feet with the heels bouncing up and down. That’s what I was referring to.

I put this evolution down – in part – down to the influence of western boxing. You can see the similarities here:

My point was that, just as karate footwork has been inflected by western boxing, I’m sure that, in time, the head and body movement of western boxing will also have an influence. The quote you took from the original thread is better read with the preceding and following paragraphs:

http://iainabernethy.co.uk/content/head-movement#comment-6529

Iain Abernethy wrote:

As regards head movement generally, I do think this is something that the eastern arts do not teach as well as western boxing does. In my own training and teaching head movement is practised (for the fighting side of practise) and that is almost entirely from my training with boxers and kick-boxers – or karateka who also have experience of boxing / kick-boxing – as opposed to my “pure” karate training.

If you were to look how the footwork employed by karateka has evolved over the last forty years or so, we can see a marked shift from the “flat footed shuffling back and forth” of the 60s and 70s, to “on the balls of the feet, light and lively” footwork of today. This shift is because of the influence and effectiveness of the footwork in western boxing (for fighting).

Just as western boxing has had a massive influence on the footwork employed by modern karateka – to the point where such footwork is now accepted as “traditional” by the karate mainstream – I’m sure the same will happen with body and head movement too.

Why is there a lack of head movement in traditional arts? It's very effective in self-defence situations to be able to move your head whilst keeping your center of gravity and able to deliver other blows. I'm actually surprised that the early karate guys did not have training tools similar to the maize bag and double end bag that boxers have been using for years. I incorporate these into my regular training and find them to be effective tools.

Why is there a lack of head movement in traditional arts? It's very effective in self-defence situations to be able to move your head whilst keeping your center of gravity and able to deliver other blows. I'm actually surprised that the early karate guys did not have training tools similar to the maize bag and double end bag that boxers have been using for years. I incorporate these into my regular training and find them to be effective tools.

I would see this as a context element.

I train and teach a degree of head movement, but that is secondary to full head shielding with the arms (as per many karate movements applied less stylistically) and leg and torso movement for evasion. This was particularly noticeable when a guest this weekend tried to bob and weave under multiple haymakers with his hands high, but didn't actually protect his head - he was used to big gloves doing that.

In the context of traditional arts and civilian self defence the range and manner of attack meant that head shielding with the forearms was generally more appropriate than bobbing and weaving, which is a tactic more suited to challenge matches. That isn't to say that we can't gain by practicing it, or that it isn't present in the posture shifts in some forms, but that it is secondary to a good head cover with the arms. Bobbing and weaving isn't a core tactic when you are already in tactile contact and striking while stand up grappling.

In terms of tools I've used bags, tyres, focus mitts, thai pads, makiwara, kick shlelds, sand containers, cane sheaths etc over the years. I find the bag is good for boxing style punches with wraps and gloves, less so for the type of distance straight crossing or stepping lunge downwards punch bare handed that I might use from my bunkai: for that I find the makiwara better suited. I also find the makiwara better suited than the bag for techniques like uchi uke. soto uke, gedan barai and shuto uke. Although there are elements of techology disparity, by and large the traditional tools suit the types of techniques that formed the core karate striking repertoire which in turn was linked to the envisioned close quarter in fighting. If karate had had lots of round or shin kicks in its history then we might have seen tools more similar to traditional thai equipment.

John beat me to it, I think I'm agreeing with him when I say; when I'm in indexing or manipulating my assailant or partner's body, that contact and pressure slows my torso and head movement down a lot, as well as reducing my heat range of motion, making head movement be not something I'll ever train as much and make as important as someone who doesn't use that kind of contact can.

I agree with BrianP, personally I don't see most self defense skills as either "do practice" or "don't". Head movement is a critical and valuyable skill, as is the ability to strike hard from a 'less planted' 'more mobile' platform than you oftne see in karate.
Personally, I have kind of come to a (very grey) conception that there are two broad categories of skills, i.e. 1) 'things to do in the interview / standing "square go" scenario' and 2) 'things to do once the fight is on' . I was talking about this with another instructor recently. It seems that so called 'athletic' systems (Including tactics like the above video), are often lampooned as being in effective in self defense, because they are (supposedly) more concerned with dealing with a fight that is proceeding from a point of mutual consent where the other guy is throwing "unrealistic" (i.e. non-HAV) techniques, (the kind you see in every bad 'street fighting' video).
The other context (the first), tends to be more concerned with the square go HAV type scenario which, in my opinion, includes tactics that are more appropriate to the interview stage just before or just as a (highly mobile) 'fight' kicks off.
So personally, I see real value and utility in drills just like this, realizing it's a demo / stunt.
And, I would agree that the point of STAYING and attempting to 'fight' at an 'athletic' range of combat is foolish. It's just a question of potentially disagreeing with the concept that drills like this are somehow not valid for self-defense because they *originated* in an 'athletic' context.

as is the ability to strike hard from a 'less planted' 'more mobile' platform than you often see in karate.

I totally agree with that. Being able to hit as you move is a key skill that is not emphasised enough.

miket wrote:

It's just a question of potentially disagreeing with the concept that drills like this are somehow not valid for self-defense because they *originated* in an 'athletic' context.

I don’t think any one is arguing that because something “originated” in an athletic context it is immediately invalid? Lots of training methods, equipment, drills, etc originate from combat sports and they (with some adaptation) can be extremely useful.

To me, it’s not where something “originated” but what it is “designed” for. Methods designed for a given forms of consensual fighting are not automatically valid for other forms of conflict or violence.

In a consensual fight (such as a boxing bout) people will hang back and move back and forth as they test each other and look to create and exploit openings. This result is a distance between then that allows for reaction to be effective. Blocking, slipping, moving the head, etc are all forms of reaction and they are effective in this context because the distance permits the time needed to react.

If you move to civilian violence we don’t see the same distance. It collapses in an instant to frantic close-range attack and counter-attack. In this close-range chaos, reaction is far less effective because of the hugely increased “rate of fire” and the lack of a reactionary gap. Head motion as shown above therefore has nothing like the same value or effectiveness as it did in the “boxing context”.

The clip shows very effectively the value of good head motion at “consensual combat distance”, but is, in my view, potentially misleading because it has the title “how to win a street fight with head movement”. If what is meant is a consensual fight in the street (which is what is demonstrated) then that’s all very valid. Although it must be pointed out that “street fighting” is pretty much illegal the world over and consenting to such fight is a very bad idea.

If the common mistake of thinking “self-protection” and “street fighting” are one and the same is being made, then the demonstration is far less valid as the physical side of self-protection is highly unlikely to look like what is demonstrated (it will be faster, closer and much more chaotic).

It’s not that head motion should not be studied (see previous posts), but simply that it has huge value in one contact but far less value in another. It’s also not a good / bad values based on origin either. It’s a judgement based on utility.

No one would consider a hammer “worse” than a paint brush because it was not good for applying paint. It’s simply a matter of attaching the right tools to the task in hand.

I tell people we bob and weave in karate, we just do it differently. Showed this to a guy with competitive boxing experience that asked me "Why don't you karate guys bob & weave?"

Evasive movements up/down, sideways and twisting are all in karate. Problem is this has been lost in many schools because of a misunderstanding of the purpose of posture in karate. This has also lead to the bouncing banby syndrome. You can be very light on your feet w/o bouncing and on an uneven surface you put yourself at risk of mis-stepping.
Seen this video before. Most people get so engrossed in his head movements, it doesn't register how many times he uses his hands to keep from getting hit while evading.

BTW, training and understanding tai sabaki will illustrate why head movements are not prevalent but whole body moves are. Notice in the video he is always staying in fromt of his opponent and never gets past him. This is a result of his method of evasion. Take the gloves off and try partnering with someone actually trying to hit you hard enough to knock you down from a closer distance than what you are seeing here, and don't limit it to head shots. You'll realize you need to evade differently.
The bouncing is a whole other subject I won't even get into right now